Page 20


“Dialogue,” from page 2 HIGH CRIMES “It would be nice if we were to start the new century by putting Clinton, Bush and Kissinger on trial for crimes against humanity,” writes Independent ganization, some way to promote the cause of putting these American war criminals on trial? John Smith Paris, France MONICA AND BOAZ? I write here of Monica and the Book of Ruth. Why doesn’t the Christian Coalition, supporting the Republicans in Congress, credit this book in the Old Testament, in judging Monica and the President? Maybe because they’ve never read the Old Testament. Read Ruth 3:1-5 and see if it doesn’t parallel Monica seeking to seduce Clinton to divorce Hillary \(The Starr Report, course women were more like slaves in Ruth’s time. As Boaz never had a chance, neither did Clinton. That is why, when it comes to sex, Hillary Rodham’s judgment is more trustworthy than the judgment of Starr or the House Judiciary Committee. Otto B. Mullinax Dallas DEM FOR IMPEACHMENT I have always viewed the Republican Party as the party of greed and privilege, and consider it a sad day when the Democrats make them look good. However, the Democrats now appear to believe in nothing but obtaining and holding onto power. While they accuse Republicans of a “partisan witchhunt” to remove President Clinton, they have lined up in the same lock-step partisan fashion to keep him in office at all costs. I don’t believe impeachment would set a bad precedent, as my fellow Democrats claim. If anything, impeachment will make it harder for any politician to lie and abuse the power of his or her office. It is President Clinton’s defenders who want standards so low that perjury, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power are not considered impeachable offenses. Worse yet, they want public opinion, and not the careful consideration of law and facts, to be the test for impeachment. The impeachment process isn’t undermining democracy as Democrats claim. It is proof that our democracy can work that even the highest apd most powerful officials are not above the law. Elected officials who want to short-circuit the constitutional process by having a few powerbrokers cut some kind of a deal for the President are the ones threatening the Constitution. I thought it outrageous that Clinton would order the bombing of Iraq and then have his defenders use the war as an excuse to halt the impeachment. What convenient timing and selfserving arguments. There was no immediate need for the bombing. It would have made more sense to delay the bombing instead of the impeachment process. Better yet, our elected officials could have insisted on United Nations action instead of our unilateral bombing, which much of the world condemns. Yes, I believe Clinton made a foreign policy decision based on his own personal political needs. Can you honestly say he isn’t capable of such a thing? Much of the world certainly thinks he is. President Clinton isn’t a man committed to public service. He’s just a man who always wanted to be President. If he really had a vision for the nation, he would not have risked it so carelessly and repeatedly. Whatever you think of Clinton the man, he is still a President we can’t trust. He looked us in the face and lied to us. He got his friends, family, and some of the nation’s highest-ranking officials to lie for him. He lied under oath in an effort to deprive a citizen of her rights. You and I would lose our jobs and probably go to jail for what he did. Finally, he only admitted wrongdoing after he got caught. You bet I’m for impeachment. And the funny thing is, if Clinton were a Republican, most all my Democratic friends would be for impeachment too. Rick Abraham Houston TEXAS-SIZED COMPLICATIONS I was led to this publication through Molly Ivins’ “online” column in the Star-Telegram. Although I’m not a Texan I can appreciate what’s going on in your state. The things you’re writing about and the issues you’re raising are pretty much issues being raised all aver the county. They may be a little more pronounced in Texas. We all know things are bigger there, so I guess that could include corporate greed, corruption, and political hocus pocus. It’s great to be able to read something that is thoughtful and well-researched. Thanks and keep up the good work. Ken Hayes Minneapolis, Minnesota WHAT’S IT ALL ABOUT? The Republicans have been telling us “this is not about sex.” The Democrats have been saying, “Yes it is.” Now: Congressman Livingston has confessed to sex, and has resigned, because he sees that he cannot demand that President Clinton leave office unless he leaves too, because they both did the same thing: adultery. Livingston did not lie under oath, or commit perjury, or give tricky answers that he does not consider actually “lies” \(depending on definition of unwas adultery, and he clearly equates that with why he wants to put Clinton out of office. So it’s all about sex after all, isn’t it? And if the Republicans don’t give it up, it’s gonna be all about a one-party system: only Democrats can win after this affront to the will of the people! Jerry Stopher Via Internet REPREHENSIBLE AND LAMENTABLE It comes as no surprise that the House Judiciary Committee voted for articles of impeachment. This entire debacle has been characterized by an “independent” counsel with ties to right-wing groups, prosecutorial leaks, tabloid journalism, specious evidence, and overt partisanship. Clinton’s consensual sexual infidelity and subsequent evasion hardly rises to the constitutional crisis regarding the subversion of democracy implicit in the Watergate crimes. The American constituents have expressed their willingness to forgive Clinton’s trangressions, their distaste for impeachment, and their strong desire to see the entire sordid investigation and hearings resolved in a timely manner which allows the executive and legislative branches to resume focusing on issues that are important to the citizens of this country. Republican congressional representatives ignore the will of the people at their own peril, and the retrospective eye of history will view these reprehensible proceedings as a lamentable travesty of justice. Christopher Jon Largen Denton BIG MONEY VS. DEMOCRACY Behind Congressional votes locking up along party lines like sheep, soft money contributions are being laundered through each political party in a way that allows millions of dollars in federally illegal money to nonetheless be used to influence federal elections. The need of politicians to chase after regulated money plus soft money is the number one source of corrosion and gridlock in Washington. While TV networks profit from the soft money funding of more and more dueling barrages of those superficial political ads, common folks are turned off by the lousy quality of preelection information and showing record low voter turnouts. While this system has great advantages for big money interests, it locks out or drowns the messages of third party candidates and is contrary to what the word Democracy stands for. According to Common Cause \( soft money has been around since 1978, but not really exploited until 1988. Soft money then exploded from $86 million in the 1992 election to $260 million in 1996, and could well triple again to $750 million for the next presidential campaign cycle in the year 2000. What level represents windfall profits for the TV networks? While meaningful Campaign Finance Reform would ban or seriously curtail the big money influencing of our elections and legislation, Republican-led filibusters have blocked Congress from voting on such legislation at critical times for the last two years. I hope their unpopular impeachment votes will help retire more Republicans so Congress can focus on more pertinent issues. 30 THE TEXAS OBSERVER JANUARY 22, 1999